Whose idea was the tank and whose decision was it?

[Drunkard]

So easily.

 

2014 - they finish mediocre and get to pick 8th, and get a better player than the one they got in Ehlers or Nylander. Maybe luck into Pastrnak or Point later on, but that would have nothing to do with the standings finish.

 

2015 - the biggest drop off, but say they finish 8th again and land Provorov or Werenski. Or Barzal if you want them to finish 15th, a guy with a better season this year than Eichel has ever had.

 

2016. McAvoy or Sergachev instead of Nylander, although one of these years maybe they get lucky and land in the lottery. Also, they're probably a little worse at this point than in our current universe so maybe they get super lucky and get a Laine or Matthews. If we don't want to give them any luck, there's still Tkachuk.

 

Still make the ROR trade, be smarter than what appears to be the worst GM in franchise history, and maybe last year is the last season of bottoming out, and we have Petersson coming over next season to give us a young, fast, deep lineup that most assuredly has more hope than this dreary sack of ###### that is about to kick in a $10mil contract on its "franchise player" who hasn't scored 60 points or 25 goals once yet (yes, I'm aware that he'd shatter those numbers in a full season but it's not a good look) with 22 million tied up in KO, Pominville, Moulson, and Bogosian.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that right now we'd feel better about this team than we do currently had we not tanked, and that our cap and lineup would not have anywhere near this many washed out vets, many of whom were signed solely to reach cap floors because we purposely had a roster so bad it wasn't allowed to play in the ###### league.

Would we have even had the assets to bring in O'Reilly if we hadn't tanked? I don't remember the specifics but didn't we use tank assets to get that extra 1st round pick we used to get Zadorov, who seemed to be the key piece Colorado wanted in the O'Reilly deal? I think it was Gaustad but it may have been Pominville and we shipped them Grigorenko was well who was one of our 2 first round picks in 2012. Either way we also added a bunch of other pieces including Lemieux and another late first/early second that we wouldn't have add if we hadn't been stock piling assets by selling off our old core. Removing tanking from the equation and the O'Reilly deal likely never happens because some other team with more assets to spare likely outbids us easily. Edited March 29, 2018 by Alkoholist

[Randall Flagg]

the argument isn't would they be better off right now, its about was it the right course of action then. I agree they probably would be better off right now without the tank - you can't get much lower than last.  

 

If they win a cup in 7 years with Eichel as the center piece, with Samson, Mittelstandt, Nylander and whomever they draft this year and next as the "core". Was the tank still the wrong course of action?

1.) Nylander needs to graduate from looking terrible in the AHL to looking mediocre in the AHL before I even think about him someday playing in the NHL, much less being an important member of a cup team.

 

2.) No - winning a cup at this point will be the result of fixing the disaster that was the tank, not the tank itself.

Would we have even had the assets to bring in O'Reilly if we hadn't tanked? I don't remember the specifics but we used tank assets to get that extra 1st round pick we used to get Zadorov, who seemed to be the key piece Colorado wanted in the O'Reilly deal? I think it was Gaustad but it may have been Pominville and we shipped them Grigorenko was well who was one of our 2 first round picks in 2012. Either way we also added a bunch of other pieces including Lemieux and another late first/early second that we wouldn't have add if we hadn't been stock piling assets by selling off our old core. Removing tanking from the equation and the O'Reilly deal likely never happens because some other team with more assets to spare likely outbids us easily.

And with ROR we've done so well this year - even if we don't get ROR, there are hopelessly many different ways the franchise could have gone, I only meant to give a snapshot of one possible one out of trillions and trillions. 

[SwampD]

I can see that stance, and I would agree it's a valid one. Maybe if DR isn't terrible at his job we don't tank. Or maybe we fire him earlier and get a GM that also doesn't tank. Those are valid routes. I also don't believe they make tanking any less valid

 

And I completely disagree.

 

[Weave]

What other moving targets are there? Being successful in the draft? Hiring a good head coach? Not being an idiot in FA? Those are the same moving targets every successful team has to hit

Tanking required us to eliminate an entire 1st line, a very good goalie,and replace the defence. You need to hit on every one of those roster spots to call the process successful.

 

The “execution” of the rebuild is inherently tied into the tank. They cannot be separated and graded individually. Those two parts are joined at the hip.

[WildCard]

The point is that it isn't trivial to rebuild organizational depth well after you've purposely destroyed it and handcuffed yourself with contracts you KNOW are going to be bad down the line so that you can be allowed to have a franchise that year. The tank assumes that it is. It's not just "make better decisions". The consensus among both smart fans and smart NHL people is that Murray was at least doing fine if not well, until all of a sudden it became apparent that he was the worst GM in a long time. Because it's ###### hard to build good, fluid roster dynamics in your organization. It's hard to maintain it when you already have it, much less go from having plugs and tweeners playing up to your first line of Moulson-Girgensons-Ennis. We ran Flynn and Mitchell, guys that immediately became 9-13th forwards on low-seed playoff teams, as our second line for that season, and that lack of depth haunted us even though after "fast tracking" we still made more picks than an average team would in that stretch. That's because filling depth both with picks and with players isn't a trivial "just get it right" or "making the right hire would have done it right" scenario. It's nearly impossible to do, and that lack of depth in 2015 has never been fixed even though we've tried like hell via fast tracking trades, expensive free agents, cheap free agents (we added like 10 this year), we still had Jamie goddamn McGinn as a top LW after the tank, still have required one of 28/21 to be there last year and this year, and have always been in a state of 2 injuries requiring our lineup to look like it did in 2015. 

 

The point of anti-tankers is that this isn't just a result of bad management. This is the most likely result of a tank regardless of good management, because building teams is far more of a crap-shoot than anyone would like to admit, so purposely setting yourself so far back is always going to haunt you. 

 

And finally, no, the Leafs don't count even though they're the luckiest goddamn team in existence. Even though I would call their 2016 season a tank. (Garret Sparks? Come onnnnnnn.) There needed to be a decade of discomfort and several hockey savants in the organization as a preset to 2014-15 to give it a decent chance of being successful, AND THEN an unlikely lottery win. 

 

 

What contracts have possibly handcuffed us from making any moves we needed to make? We've had ample cap space to go after and UFA we want to create depth and a winning dynamic, both in the AHL and NHL. We've also had more than enough cap space to retain any player we want.

 

You're saying that by scorching the roster so much we depleted all of our depth at every level, which in turn made us get terrible players we were stuck with that fostered a culture of losing. I don't see how drafting well and keeping good talent in Rochester while the NHL team tanks isn't a viable solution to this problem of culture. I don't believe that teams that do a traditional rebuild and have never won anything have some sort of magic winning culture and attitude as a result of not tanking; the fact is you don't get that attitude/culture without winning, and winning is easier with more talent. If you want to develop that mantra, or if you want to cultivate depth, do it the same way every team in a sport with a farm system does it: draft well and keep those players together in minor leagues to win together. 

Tanking required us to eliminate an entire 1st line, a very good goalie,and replace the defence. You need to hit on every one of those roster spots to call the process successful.

 

The “execution” of the rebuild is inherently tied into the tank. They cannot be separated and graded individually. Those two parts are joined at the hip.

That entire first line, good goalie, and defence were leaving no matter what. 

 

I disagree. If you don't separate them then there's no difference between a tank and a rebuild

[Randall Flagg]

What contracts have possibly handcuffed us from making any moves we needed to make? We've had ample cap space to go after and UFA we want to create depth and a winning dynamic, both in the AHL and NHL. We've also had more than enough cap space to retain any player we want.

 

We're paying Moulson and Gorges 9 million dollars, and traded identical cap dumps (so we'll say for simplicity "have Ennis") for almost 5, the first and last being given that money because they looked damn good getting spoonfed the only good opportunities you can have on a team like this. And even though Moulson's contract length bothered people, at least for the first few years we assumed they'd be good investments. It's not crippled to the degree that the Hawks are going to be, but we are absolutely feeling ramifications of the waste of space those guys represent. Furthermore, again, having cap space to go after that depth does not automatically suppose we even have a 25% chance of doing a good job at that, because again, it's not a trivial thing to do. I, you, and 99.9% of people on planet earth would have failed to some degree because there are maybe 5 teams in the league who are satisfied with their depth, and it took them a decade to get there (how long was Winnipeg bad, careful, and shrewd to finally break out this year? How long did Nashville toil about in supposed purgatory, again being careful, frugal, and not over-reactive? THIS is the only way to reliably build depth without just "getting lucky" and still takes years and years even when you don't purposely obliterate worse than any team ever has in the modern NHL) starting from positions far better than we were in 2015, a team with Chris Stewart as our 2nd best offensive weapon and a team that took about 35% of the shots in any given game.

 

You're saying that by scorching the roster so much we depleted all of our depth at every level, which in turn made us get terrible players we were stuck with that fostered a culture of losing. I don't see how drafting well and keeping good talent in Rochester while the NHL team tanks isn't a viable solution to this problem of culture. I don't believe that teams that do a traditional rebuild and have never won anything have some sort of magic winning culture and attitude as a result of not tanking; the fact is you don't get that attitude/culture without winning, and winning is easier with more talent. If you want to develop that mantra, or if you want to cultivate depth, do it the same way every team in a sport with a farm system does it: draft well and keep those players together in minor leagues to win together. 

 

It is a viable solution. It is incredibly hard and takes a long time, and got a lot harder and will take a lot longer after we destroyed our team.

That entire first line, good goalie, and defence were leaving no matter what. 

 

I disagree. If you don't separate them then there's no difference between a tank and a rebuild

Edited March 29, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[Weave]

Rebuilding can be done whithout the need to finish last.

 

Scorched earth plans like our tank require entire offenses and defences be repopulated. It’s a Herculian task that is inherently high risk and has no more reward potential than a simple rebuild.

[Sabre Dance]

Hmm...I don't recall that always wanting to be the middle of the pack is "having it my way".  My point is that finishing somewhere in the middle of the pack right now is preferable to being dead last (in a season that was supposed to have us on the upswing). No, I was not satisfied constantly finishing mid-pack; I always hope for much better.  I am just saying the the tank has yet to produce intended results AND if given a choice between a middling team that is entertaining to watch is preferable to the horror show of the last few seasons. Wake me when the nightmare is over...

[Brawndo]

What Free Agents skipped over Buffalo because of the tank. Kyle Okposo was the number free agent in 2016 and had zero problems signing here.

 

The biggest issue was the Sabres had 4 of the Top 31 Picks in the 2015 Draft, rated the best draft since 2003.

They have Eichel, Kane, Lehner and ROR to show for it.

Two of those players will be off the team in less than three years, with the possibility of ROR being moved this summer as well. That’s poor asset management. Imagine if they had come out of the draft with Eichel, Boeser, Aho and ROR instead. I doubt we would be arguing about why the team is still in 31st.

 

GMTM believed incorrectly believed he could accelerate the playoff run. The best bet would have to rebuild slowly stock the pipeline with prospects and strengthen Rochester. Particularly when Regier missed on so many draft picks in his final years.

 

What I wonder is if PLF had recommended Botterill after interviewing him in 2014 to the Pegulas where would the team be now?

[WildCard]

I don't believe for a second that acquiring depth takes years and years and years to do. It may take that long because teams make bad moves, sure, but it is not just something that is just a given. I understand it is very, very hard to build depth, that only makes tanking all the more attractive to me. Where did your Winnipeg, and Nashville, depth come from? From hitting on draft picks. You say creating depth takes so long because it's difficult and the chances at hitting on players is low. Well then it seems like the best way to shorten the time frame is by getting yourself the best chances and the most chances at successfully "guessing right". 

 

Being a GM is hard. Why wouldn't I give a GM all of the possible ammo we can in order to make those decisions easier, and to make them more frequent? 

What Free Agents skipped over Buffalo because of the tank. Kyle Okposo was the number free agent in 2016 and had zero problems signing here.

The biggest issue was the Sabres had 4 of the Top 31 Picks in the 2015 Draft, rated the best draft since 2003.
They have Eichel, Kane, Lehner and ROR to show for it.
Two of those players will be off the team in less than three years, with the possibility of ROR being moved this summer as well. That’s poor asset management. Imagine if they had come out of the draft with Eichel, Boeser, Aho and ROR instead. I doubt we would be arguing about why the team is still in 31st.

GMTM believed incorrectly believed he could accelerate the playoff run. The best bet would have to rebuild slowly stock the pipeline with prospects and strengthen Rochester. Particularly when Regier missed on so many draft picks in his final years.

What I wonder is if PLF had recommended Botterill after interviewing him in 2014 to the Pegulas where would the team be now?

Exactly. Do just what Botterill is doing, and what made Pittsburgh Pittsburgh. Create a farm system, don't rush the kids, let them play and win together in the minors, and draft well. We complained about Darcy doing the same thing with Grigorenko as well. The only time he was successful at a rebuild, he built a team in Rochester and let them mature/win together

Edited March 29, 2018 by Jokertecken

[Drunkard]

Tanking required us to eliminate an entire 1st line, a very good goalie,and replace the defence. You need to hit on every one of those roster spots to call the process successful.

 

The “execution” of the rebuild is inherently tied into the tank. They cannot be separated and graded individually. Those two parts are joined at the hip.

Who was centering this theoretical 1st line that we had to eliminate to tank? Roy? Gaustad? Ennis? Bueller ... Bueller?

 

I'm pretty sure the main reason we tanked was because we didn't have a 1st line center that was worth a damn and we're not the Rangers so it was impossible for us to just buy one.

[Weave]

Who was centering this theoretical 1st line that we had to eliminate to tank? Roy? Gaustad? Ennis? Bueller ... Bueller?

 

I'm pretty sure the main reason we tanked was because we didn't have a 1st line center that was worth a damn and we're not the Rangers so it was impossible for us to just buy one.

That’s already been answered. The ROR trade didn’t require a tank.

[WildCard]

That’s already been answered. The ROR trade didn’t require a tank.

You believe RoR is a first line center?

[LGR4GM]

You know the best part. We still have Jack Eichel regardless

Edited March 29, 2018 by Skurk Liger

[SwampD]

Who was centering this theoretical 1st line that we had to eliminate to tank? Roy? Gaustad? Ennis? Bueller ... Bueller?

 

I'm pretty sure the main reason we tanked was because we didn't have a 1st line center that was worth a damn and we're not the Rangers so it was impossible for us to just buy one.

Our GM told us we had 2.

[Randall Flagg]

You know the best part. We still have Jack Eichel regardless

Yeah it is nice to have the 39th best scorer in the league in points per game, who can't play a lick of defense, what would we do without the tank?

 

:P 

(I'm just messing, I expect Jack to dominate throughout his career)

[Drunkard]

That’s already been answered. The ROR trade didn’t require a tank.

Huh? That's not what I asked. You said that tanking required us to purge our top line, starting goalie, and replace the defense. I asked who was the center was from that top line that we had to trade in order to tank? We dumped a top line LW in Vanek, and a top line RW in Pominville, plus a quality starting goalie in Miller, so I'll give you that we dumped 2/3 of a mediocre top line in order to kickstart the tank, but we had no centers to speak of which is why we needed to tank to get one.

 

Most of what we gave up for O'Reilly were spoils from the selloff as well so tanking did help to provide the assets to get him (Grigorenko and Zadorov were both first round picks that we took in years that we had multiple first round picks from selling off assets and tanking. I doubt Colorado would have been interested in trading O'Reilly for Vanek and Pominville. They wanted younger players and high picks.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Alkoholist

[Brawndo]

In terms of Barzal, I wonder what his production will be when he is the Islanders First Line Center next season?

[Randall Flagg]

In terms of Barzal, I wonder what his production will be when he is the Islanders First Line Center next season?

Who knows, but he's been legitimately better at hockey than Tavares this year according to Islanders fans. 

[Brawndo]

Who knows, but he's been legitimately better at hockey than Tavares this year according to Islanders fans.

Are there stats to back this up, or is it the Isles Fans rationalizing the impending Tavares Divorce?

[dudacek]

Here is my Pi moment: Barzal is a selfish who will score points but ultimately disappoint as a leader and franchise centre when JT leaves. He will settle partway between Seguin in Dallas and Drouin in Montreal.

 

(Which oddly enough is where you’d have to put Jack Eichel so far.)

Edited March 29, 2018 by dudacek

[nfreeman]

Hmm...I don't recall that always wanting to be the middle of the pack is "having it my way".  My point is that finishing somewhere in the middle of the pack right now is preferable to being dead last (in a season that was supposed to have us on the upswing). No, I was not satisfied constantly finishing mid-pack; I always hope for much better.  I am just saying the the tank has yet to produce intended results AND if given a choice between a middling team that is entertaining to watch is preferable to the horror show of the last few seasons. Wake me when the nightmare is over...

 

Exactly, and the choice is not between "tanking to win a cup" and "losing in the 1st round every year."  That is a silly straw man.

 

The point is that if you are good enough to get to the 1st round and perhaps win a round every year -- which the Sabres were, 1.5 seasons before commencing the tank -- you are MUCH closer to cup contention than you are if you tank.  So if you find yourself in that situation, you don't panic and burn it to the ground in the hopes of winning the powerball lottery.  You incrementally build and improve your team every year so that you can get to the level that, say, Nashville or SJ (2 teams that didn't tank) are in -- i.e. legit final 4 teams with legit SCF chances, every GD year -- and where regular-season home games are sold out and rocking good times. 

 

And if you don't have the right GM to implement that plan -- which DR wasn't -- you find someone who is.

[LGR4GM]

I changed my mind. The tank was worth it regardless of if we make the playoffs next season or the one after or whatever. It was worth it. Jack Eichel was worth it.

[WildCard]

Exactly, and the choice is not between "tanking to win a cup" and "losing in the 1st round every year."  That is a silly straw man.

 

The point is that if you are good enough to get to the 1st round and perhaps win a round every year -- which the Sabres were, 1.5 seasons before commencing the tank -- you are MUCH closer to cup contention than you are if you tank.  So if you find yourself in that situation, you don't panic and burn it to the ground in the hopes of winning the powerball lottery.  You incrementally build and improve your team every year so that you can get to the level that, say, Nashville or SJ (2 teams that didn't tank) are in -- i.e. legit final 4 teams with legit SCF chances, every GD year -- and where regular-season home games are sold out and rocking good times. 

 

And if you don't have the right GM to implement that plan -- which DR wasn't -- you find someone who is.

The Sharks were/are loaded with top end talent that was drafted high

 

You really wanna pick the Predators? They're an anomaly. One that, funny enough, just lost in the SC Final to a team that tanked; a team that has made the Finals 4 times, in fact beating the two example teams you just listed in SJ and Nashville. Tell me how the Predators got so good

 

Edit: If that comes off a little aggressive, sorry about that. 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Jokertecken

[nfreeman]

SJ's highest pick since 2003 was #8 in 2005 (Setoguchi).

 

And yes, I do want a team like SJ or Nashville -- one that is smartly put together, is in the hunt every year and, to get where they are, never had to endure a generation in the wilderness like the Sabres have inflicted on their fans.

 

And I realize that Nashville lost to Pittsburgh last year.  But that does NOT mean that hoping for a miracle Malkin-Crosby run in the lottery is a smart way to build a team.  It just means that Pittsburgh won the once-in-50-years powerball.